And I don't see how anyone can defend the position that it's ok to say "Fragony, our resident Muslim fag" here at the .Org given the .Org policy on language from the last... well, for as far as I can remember, so it has be .Org policy since at least 5 years.

I wasn't aware that policy has changed recently.

Let's say a member is known for his controversial viewpoints on black people. Would it have been ok for Louis to say in that same post "X, our resident [n-word]"?

How I understand it, "fag" and "[n-word]" are in the same category. Surely, "fag" has to be worse than the acronym "WTF".

I don't mind staff being strict about language. I know why it is like that, I tend to agree with the ratio behind it and I have defended that policy more then once in the past.

The general consensus among staff here in the WT when somebody complained about not being allowed to use a certain "bad" word was always that that is the policy followed by an explanation why that policy is in order. The answer to the complaints about not being allowed to use bad language has always been "no" and the policy remained. Which is a good thing, I think.

And now, a staff member posted a bad word, a patron called him out on it, and look around you.

The policy at the time Louis posted "Fragony, our resident Muslim fag" was the same policy that has always been there.

I don't understand this and none of the explanations given so far have been satisfying. A lot of blahblahblah, smoke and mirrors, all of it unnecessary, because it is obvious that posting "Fragony, our resident Muslim fag" is simply not allowed here at the .Org; it hasn't been for at least 5 years.

Why is it being allowed now?